WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.

The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

Burnett’s assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.

Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney’s office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC’s original draft testimony removed.

Read the Full Story Here

 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Disentangling cause from effect is another matter altogether but in my mind it is a triangulation of three factors a) Individual responsibility and choices; b) Government empowerment and protection and c) corporate power and profits 

Now why didn’t they ask me first… I am still gathering all the facts – and would love your help – but below I have tried to capture some of the things that are going on in America and many Western Countries (you know, the ones that are meant to be the best protected and most fortunate).

Here is one view of our collective health problems. Please add your input

• The average person in modern society have more conveniences, entertainment and luxuries than the kings and queens of 200 years ago … but is our generation any happier or more fulfilled than even the last one?
• Today we are suffering diseases unheard of by our grand-parents
• Today young people are suffering health problems normally associated with old people
• Many diseases and health consequences do not show up until years or decades after poorly tested and/or regulated products were allowed on the market
• The companies responsible either are not held accountable or rarely pay for the price of the problem
• Health consequences are costing society more than in any time of our history
• Many health problems – allergies for example – are related to chemical byproducts or genetically modified food entering our environment.
• Once a virulent substance is unleashed on the environment it simply cannot be recalled
• The long term consequences of our behavior is devastating to life on this planet

I am not convinced there is a conspiracy theory of any high order of magnitude out there. But I do believe that the motivations of a corporation – which invariably boils down to making money for shareholders and lots of money for executives – have by and large proven to be diametrically opposed to the interests of human beings and the ecosphere.

Here is the beginning of a list of sources and insights on this HUGE topic. As I understand more I will make this whole thing more coherent.

Enjoy.

YouTube : video link

THE CAMPAIGN FOR HEALTHIER EATING IN AMERICA

Healthy Eating Starts With No Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Visit The Institute for Responsible Technology Here

You may have heard the FDA and food industry claims that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe, properly tested, and necessary to feed a hungry world. UNTRUE! Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one of the most dangerous and radical changes to our food supply. These largely unregulated ingredients found in 60-70% of the foods in the US, are well worth the effort to avoid them. Fortunately, health-conscious consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers and growers are participating in The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, which will help eliminate GMOs from thousands of food products. Their efforts will make it easier for you to avoid the serious health risks of eating GMOs and to feed your family a healthier “non-GMO” diet. The campaign’s goal is to stop the genetic engineering of the entire US food supply.

If a sufficient number of shoppers in the US avoid GMO foods, consumer pushback will force our major food companies to stop using them. The Europe Union reached a consumer driven tipping point in April 1999 on this issue and within a single week, virtually all major manufacturers publicly committed to stop using GM ingredients in their European brands. Sadly, the same companies that carefully avoid adding GMO ingredients to products marketed to concerned consumers in the European Union are eager to sell GMO foods to uneducated consumers in the US.

In the US, the natural foods industry has led the way in the widespread consumer rejection of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST) in dairy products, by educating their customers about the health dangers associated with rbGH and making rbGH-free brands readily available. This wave that started in natural food aisles is being felt throughout the entire food industry. Within the last two years, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, and about 40 of the 100 top dairies removed rbGH products as consumer concerns reached a tipping point on this issue. As US consumers pushed back against GM dairy products, the food industry responded.

But time is of the essence, The US sugar beet industry is venturing into the world of genetically modified crops this year by introducing a new gene-spliced variety engineered by Monsanto with plans to make GM sugar available to the food industry in 2009. We must act now to help stop the introduction of unlabeled GM sugar from GM sugar beets into our food supply.

Sites that are keeping a watch on GMO’s:

Additional resources

• Guerrilla News Network introduction to the film  
• Jonathan Campbell’s 50 harmful effects of GM foods   
• Extensive Wikipedia entry on GM food  
• Independent Science Panel case for a GM-free sustainable world  
• GMWatch.org list of the players behind GM foods
• Robin Good

Since the probable death of national climate-control legislation after a brief Senate debate this month, the California plan is the most comprehensive effort in the country to devise an economy-wide program to reduce heat-trapping gases.

The New York Times reports today that the greatest source of reductions would come from capping emissions from utilities, industrial facilities and other businesses, while allowing them to use permits to emit authorized amounts of pollutants. The companies could buy and sell these permits with their counterparts in seven Western states and three Canadian provinces.

These are the broad details of the plan by state regulators to meet the goals of California’s groundbreaking 2006 law requiring reductions in carbon dioxide and other emissions that contribute to climate change.

Read more Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/us/26california.html

Here’s the LA TImes today

California air board announces plan for carbon-credit trading

The agency’s proposal would slash greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels. But it has a long way to go.

California air regulators today announced a bold plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions that would alter the way utilities generate electricity, automakers build cars and developers construct buildings, and launch the nation’s broadest market in carbon-credit trading.

California’s blueprint is the first comprehensive effort to combat global warming by any American state, and comes nearly three weeks after the U.S. Senate threw out a national greenhouse gas bill that would have set similar targets.

Virtually every sector of the state’s economy would be affected by the air board’s plan, including coal-fired power plants and oil refineries, landfills where rotting garbage emits methane gas and forests, which would be cultivated to reduce fires.

But the California Air Resources Board’s draft road map for implementing the state’s landmark 2006 global warming law faces daunting obstacles, among them resistance from the Bush administration, legislative snarls and some industry opposition.

The federal government has blocked California’s 2002 law to cut carbon dioxide fumes from automobile tailpipes, opting for a less strict mileage standard. The controversial attempt to get utilities to generate one-third of their energy from renewable sources died in the Legislature last year and is pending before the Assembly, along with several green-building bills.

Meanwhile, the Western Climate Initiative, a group of seven states and three Canadian provinces, has yet to agree on the basics of a trading plan, much less cope with political skepticism.

In a media briefing, board Chairwoman Mary Nichols called the 99-page document “an ambitious goal that translates into a 30% cut in carbon emissions over business as usual,” adding that it might “motivate other states and the nation.”

The price tag for individual industries has yet to be calculated, and some companies fear it could be exorbitant. But Nichols said that overall, the benefits to the state’s economy, including healthcare savings from fewer breathing ailments, would slightly outweigh the costs.

Given the projected fallout from global warming, which include increased wildfires, water shortages and illness from heat-induced pollution, “The potential costs of implementing the plan pale beside the cost of doing nothing,” the document asserts.

Although most environmental and industry groups will not see copies of the plan until today’s board meeting, many have been briefed and offered guarded approval.

Shelly Sullivan, executive director of the AB-32 Implementation Group, an alliance of the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Assn., praised the plan as “balanced and cost-effective.”

“We’re encouraged that this draft acknowledges the effectiveness of market systems like cap-and-trade to deliver greenhouse gas emission reductions at a lower cost for California consumers.”

If California succeeds in reducing emissions from a projected 596 million metric tons in 2020 to 427 million metric tons, it will have ratcheted itself down to the amount it emitted in 1990, about 10% below today’s level.

That would mean, on an average per capita basis, reducing the annual carbon footprint of every Californian from 14 tons to about 10 tons, according to the air board.

“This is the beginning of a process,” Nichols acknowledged. “Now is when we begin to talk through how the program will go into effect.”

Many public workshops and meetings with industries and civic groups, as well as more detailed economic modeling, remain before the board would adopt the plan, slated for November. It would take another two years to develop regulations to lock the goals in place, officials say.

Beyond 2020, the board is committed to even more dramatic action: reducing emissions by 80% by mid-century, the level that most scientists say will be needed globally, if Earth is to avoid a dangerous level of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has endorsed the 80% goal in an executive order.

State Sen. Don Perata (D-Oakland noted that bills to implement the plan’s efficiency and renewable-energy goals are pending, but he added, “I am concerned that the plan relies on a ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme that raises more questions than it answers.”

Under such a system, similar to one the European Union has adopted, governments set a limit on overall emissions but allow some industries, such as coal-dependent utilities, to purchase pollution credits. The credits can be traded on the market. Heavy polluters could offset their emissions by paying to clean up other industries where costs are less prohibitive, or invest in other projects that decrease carbon.

What proportion of pollution permits or allowances would be given out free and what proportion would be auctioned has yet to be worked out. That decision is likely to spark debate among industries and environmental groups.

Offsets could involve projects outside of California but within the regional Western market. They would be subject to scrutiny to certify the reductions as authentic. International offsets might be permitted for Mexican border projects or for imported cement, a benefit for state cement firms that say it would be too expensive to cut carbon.

Nichols said the partners in a Western carbon-trading alliance are “committed to this process” but said that if a stalemate persists after two years, “We have time to reassess and either go forward on our own or look at other options.”

David Nahai, chief executive of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, who had expressed strong reservations about the air board’s direction before the plan was issued, said in an e-mail message that “the plan goes a long way toward addressing the concerns we have voiced over using a cap-and-trade auction as the primary device to lower greenhouse gas emissions.”

The DWP relies on coal to generate almost half of its electricity, potentially putting it in a position of paying huge sums to offset the pollution, money the utility says it would rather spend on switching to cleaner sources. The plan, however, would support the DWP’s efforts to switch to renewable fuels “as opposed to thwarting our efforts, as prior proposals would have done,” Nahai said.

Patricia Monahan, director of the California office of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the plan, “while still a proposal, represents the furthest step forward any state has taken in the fight against global warming.”

But Chris Busch, a Union economist, added that the Western Climate Initiative needs to be strengthened: “Until the details are filled in, the jury remains out.”

From an economic viewpoint, the air board sought to head off the sort of industry attack that has stymied national legislation, by highlighting what it said would be “a green tech business boom.”

Moreover, it added, the plan could save taxpayers $2 billion in medical and other costs by 2020, by reducing harmful air pollution that would otherwise cause 340 premature deaths and 9,400 cases of asthma, it estimated. Energy-efficient buildings would save money for their occupants, and clean cars would cost less to drive, the board noted.

“Making our state more efficient will make our state grow,” Nichols said. “We can protect our economy and our environment at the same time.”

margot.roosevelt@

latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate26-2008jun26,0,4180472.story?page=2